Re: The sky over Roswell

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:33:19 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:17:00 -0400
Subject: Re: The sky over Roswell
> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 12:18:46 -0700> From: Ted Viens <drtedv@smart1.net>> To: updates@globalserve.net> Subject: The sky over Roswell> 5th July 1997 Roswell, New Mexico. The Roswell Alien Crash Street Circus> and Road Show was winding down for another day. Realizing that this> The early night was cloudless and the view of the starry skies was as> rewarding as could be expected. As the sun dropped below the horizon,> casual glances through the unobstructed northern sky failed to catch the> slow glittering sweep of any passing satellite. Local commuter flights> into the Roswell airfield passed nearly at eye level. The passengers> could almost be seen in the dimly lit cabins. Regional flights passed at> twice the altitude. And twice again as high, a cross country flight> could be seen. The telltale blinking flight lights always betraying the> source. My interest in shortwave listening suffered from the effects of> black from east to west. Sitting on the concrete foundation of the> microwave tower, I again glanced straight up when, at the zenith, I> finally saw a light moving in the sky. It resembled closely the> brightest stars in size and brilliance. It passed from directly overhead> to the eastern horizon undiminished and unswerving in about a minutes> Ho-hum you say. Hum, I thought. So many plausible common explanations,> Isn't science wonderful. My observation of a distant light moving in a> straight line high in the night sky over the Roswell Alien Crash Street> Circus and Road Show seemed at casual glance so easily dismissable. Ah,> but bring in the simple tools of hard science and things become> perplexing. The object was self illuminated. It passed from zenith to> horizon in less than a minute. If in space, it was violating the rules> of orbital mechanics much to the distress of Kepler and Newton. If in> the atmosphere, it was exceeding the limits of any known or imagined> earth aircraft or technology. Its movement only showed it to be a> powered flight beyond the limits of known science. What could it be?> Beats the pants off me...
Let me get this straight. You saw a simple NL passing overhead and you
used a satellite emphemeris program to rule out any satellites. You
calculated velocities and transit times of an aircraft. You judged its
luminosity and motion to be unlike anything easily determinable.
Therefore, a "scientific" analysis shows that the seemingly-explainable
object may in fact be "beyond the limits of known science."
This reminds me of the investigator who said:
"I know everything there is to know about anything,
therefore I am an expert."
Put your pants back on. :)
Could it be that out in the western desert, there are test flights of
military (terrestrial) aircraft with characteristics unknown to you?
Could there have been missing data or a glitch in the satellite
emphemeris, as has been found by some satellite observers on other
occasions?
Just because *you* cannot identify it does *not* mean it is an alien
spaceship, as you imply. That's why serious researchers have a category
called "Unidentified," in which to put observations of objects without
a simple explanation.
Yours was an excellent exercise and shows how complicated UFO
investigation really is, requiring a lot of time and effort even for
the most simple cases. You are to be commended for your thoughtful
approach, but to suggest the UFO was therefore a non-terrestrial or
unconventional phenomenon isn't *quite* warranted. It might have been
wiser and more scientific just to concede it was "unexplained."
> A light passes in the sky over Roswell, New Mexico. Simple science> eliminates the possibility of any known technology. Could it have been a> commemorative flight? I cannot demonstrate what it might have been. I> can only rule out what it cannot be. Perhaps other easily dismissed> distant lights moving in the night sky should be investigated more> carefully under the scrutiny of hard science.
No, I would not agree with the timbre of that last line. This implies
that dismissal of simple NLs is unwarranted, which may not be true. If
a person reports to me a NL seen in the vicinity of an airport, and
said UFO "hovers" while slowly moving off without showing any
clearly-visible wing lights, it is *still* most likely that the object
is an aircraft. This would be the case *even if* the witness is
"familiar" with aircraft. Mistakes and misinterpretations occur. Or, if
a witness reports an "aircraft on fire, crashing in the field a few
miles away," it's more than likely a bolide, regardless of how close
the UFO "appeared." This type of reduction (as well as deduction) is
gained only through many years experience in UFO report investigation.
"Simple science" may have eliminated the possibility of any known
technology, but I would offer that you don't know *all* the technology
out there. Further, "less simple science" may be able to identify the
object, given enough time and resources.
Great essay, BTW! This is a must-read for all UFO investigators!
--
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca
(and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca)
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada